(Course number)
Education is an invaluable wealth which transcends race, religion, culture, gender and which everyone must possess. Every person has the right to be educated according to his vocation and interest. Just like any other freedom, education must be enhanced, developed and protected. Unfortunately, some policies of the State are restrictive insofar as the kind of programs and education every university should offer and implement. Hence, the State resolved that Chinese Universities should not be allowed to implement their own chosen academic programs.
It is the aim of this paper to refute the policy of the State in not allowing Chinese Universities to implement their own educational programs. The arguments are based on the following three issues:
The first argument is based on the freedom in education. The US Constitution safeguards all freedoms; be it freedom of religion, of assembly, or of speech. Freedom in education is one of them. Equal rights, equal opportunities and equal protection of the laws are inherently provided in the Fundamental Law of the land. Chinese Americans are also citizens of the United States, who must be protected by the same laws and the Constitution in the same manner that the rest of the Americans are protected. Although they belong to a different ethnic group, having a different culture, nonetheless, they, too, are citizens of the United States. They are entitled to the same opportunities, rights, and privileges as all other Americans are. The academic policies should conform to the law which respects everyone’s freedom of choice, including the kind of education he wants to undertake. Freedom in education does not only mean allowing people to study. However, it also means that the government should permit everyone to choose his own career path and to select the curriculum which is commensurate with it. Dr. Joel McDurmon said, “We are never free as long as we are subjected to education based on threats of government penalties or fines to any degree or at any level” (americanvision.org).
Not allowing the Chinese Universities to choose their own academic program is tantamount to depriving them of following their chosen vocations, to mold their own future and to enhance their own interests. Thus, a race without education is a race without hope.
The second argument is based on the inconsistency in the government thrust insofar as education is concerned. The US government spends billions of dollars for education. There is no doubt that its aim in doing this is to mold, especially the youth to become better and useful citizens. And so, the government necessarily provides them with quality education according to the American standards.
Consistent with this thrust of the US government, Chinese Universities likewise aim to provide more than just a quality education. They aspire to offer excellent Chinese education which caters to their own unique culture, practice, and traditions. However, the US government does allow the Chinese Universities to offer a distinct academic program. Instead, it imposes on Chinese Universities to follow American educational standards. This policy is inconsistent with the basic thrust of education. The US government and the Chinese Universities have the same aim, that is, to provide quality education. Only that the Chinese Universities have even more enhanced academic program for their students. Perhaps the State Education Department is apprehensive that the academic program which the Chinese Universities will offer is inimical to the State. Which is more inimical? Is it to have a distinct academic program which caters to the needs and interests of the Chinese students, or is it to impose an educational program which is considered foreign to them? It is believed that the latter is inimical since the American school curriculum, which is not custom tailored according to their interests, is forced upon them. No wonder, Sen. Rick Santorum said, “Seventy percent of Americans don’t have a college degree” (politifact.com). This is because college education perhaps does not have an appeal to them anymore.
The third argument is based on the discriminatory nature of the academic policy. All people should stand on the same footing before the law. This is the basic tenet of the Constitution since it provided as one of its mandates the equal rights and equal protection of the laws. Education is one of the rights of every citizen. If the State itself curtails this sacred right, then to whom should its citizens run, when the very institution which is expected to defend his rights is itself the tyrant?
If the Chinese Universities are not allowed to implement their own academic program, surely they are discriminated against based on their ethnicity. It is the right of everyone to be educated according to his interest and vocation. Likewise, it is also the right of any Chinese individual to pursue the kind of education that befits his culture, language, calling, tradition, and ethnicity. In fact, “Section 1703(f) of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA) requires state educational agencies (SEAs) and school districts to take action to overcome language barriers that impede English Language Learner (ELL) students from participating equally in school districts’ educational programs” (justice.gov). If even the matter about language barrier is taken into consideration and given emphasis by the law, then why can the academic program of the Chinese Universities not be implemented? Indeed, the academic policy of the State that the Chinese Universities should not be allowed to apply their own academic program is discriminatory in nature.
In view of the foregoing arguments, it is believed that the Chinese Universities be allowed to follow and implement their own academic program.
Works Cited
Joel McDurmon, Dr. "Freedom in Education, and How America Once Had It." The American Vision RSS. 12 Feb. 2016. Web. 31 Mar. 2016. <https://americanvision.org/4639/freedom-in-education-and-how-america-once-had-it/>.
Katarina Fielder. "70% of Americans Don't Have College Degree, Rick Santorum Says." @politifact. 5 Apr. 2015. Web. 29 Mar. 2016. <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/apr/08/rick-santorum/70-americans-dont-have-college-degree-rick-santoru/>.
"Types Of Educational Opportunities Discrimination." Types Of Educational Opportunities Discrimination. Web. 31 Mar. 2016. <https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination>.
